Chaos Patch (#57)

(Open thread + links)

The anonymity debate (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The illustrated ratchet. Changing sensibilities (plus). Entranced. To the bailing buckets. Secessions. Verse and reverse. Regular roundups.

The Hugo brouhaha (sampled, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). “… the Sad Puppies, a group of right-wing authors and fans – some of them very right wing. Like Christian Dominionist or Dark Enlightenment right wing.” Explaining the culture wars. The insufferable Economist. California screaming. Squeals from the Cathedral (and more). The Game of Thrones and Marxism (also with more communism). John Gray on freedom. Getting out of your head (no, not like this). PZ Myers: an appreciation. Funny peculiar.

Apocalypse now. Projections for a world at peace (doubly related, also this, and more here).

Everyone thinks democracy is doomed. America leads the way.

“Cyber-Libertarian Fascism” (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). This could work (at least a little). A silence in Silicon Valley.

Peopling (and related).

Dalrymple on Lubitz. “God bless Al Sharpton.”

The crisis of the Jewish Left.

“… in recent years, liberals have spontaneously convinced themselves that various groups that do poorly in school do so because someone cut their ancestors’ tails off.”

News from Salem. Another progressive plays their get out of jail free card. Northern halos (related).

Going backwards (see also 1, 2, 3).

How to win a war (and how to forget).

April 12, 2015admin 44 Comments »

TAGGED WITH : , , , , , , , ,

44 Responses to this entry

  • Chaos Patch (#57) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on April 12th, 2015 at 6:50 am Reply | Quote
  • Henk Says:

    What core idea is driving tech-comms to fly off on a tangent of their own, disregarding facets that, at first, seemed to be important to all of NRx?

    My current hypothesis is that tech-comms have (unconsciously?) swallowed one of mainstream economic thinking’s central propositions: that the only important outcome measure is the absolute size of your piece of the pie.

    Non-tech-comms seem to (unconsciously?) reject that proposition. They rather assume that relative share of the pie is the most important outcome measure. Of course, relative share neatly sums up to 100% of the pie, all of the time, won’t budge. Zero sum.

    The different assumptions imply radically different priorities and strategies. A split is unavoidable unless the question can be resolved in a way that convinces most.


    Hurlock Reply:

    What pie? What share?

    Contra the stupidity of a lot of mainstream econ models, economics is not a zero sum game.


    Henk Reply:

    The pie is an abstract whole. The whole of the pie is the sum of *something* over all economic actors. A share is the individual economic actor’s allotment. An actor’s share can be expressed in absolute terms (Actor owns $2000 of Microsoft stock) or as a fraction (Actor owns 1E-100 of Google). According to my conjecture, the tech-comm measures the size of his share in dollars. The non-tech-comm measures it as a fraction.

    By the way, Moldbug reveals a strong preference for fractional accounting. Note how his transition plan into Utopia includes tallying stakeholder’s fractional ownership of USG, to be converted into the same fractional share of NeocamSovcorp. Further note that he strongly prefers economic accounting in terms of ounces of gold, a measure for which absolute and fractional accounting become close enough to each other to disregard the difference for most purposes.

    So my conjecture would imply that Moldbug is not aligned with tech-comm.


    Aeroguy Reply:

    Gold is about having a hard currency which is different from value. Hard currency is deflationary which means it increases in value, something people who want to increase the absolute size of the pie care about. Zero sum thinking applies to things like power, not wealth. Ruling in hell vs serving in heaven. Wealth and power can be exchanged but power is conserved while wealth can be created or destroyed. If other people are productive it makes it easier to acquire wealth, however other people being productive also implies an increase in their relative power. Many men seek the success which increases their power and wealth, the man more interested in power is your enemy, the man more interested in wealth is your friend.

    Populism is built on increasing the share of power of those on the bottom by destroying everything their betters have built, often directed by one of their betters to destroy his peers. On the other hand power will flow naturally into the hands of those who pursue the creation of wealth, just as history observes wealthy civilizations conquering their poorer neighbors. Wealth remember, is anything of value, art, convenience, technology (including things like medicine, access to frontiers), beautiful women, cities, ideas, armies, philosophies, even relationships. While relationships are hardly fungible they have real value and thus can be included as wealth, after all corporations are very much in the business of developing profitable relationships.

    Power is zero sum but only as good as the wealth it controls.

    grey enlightenment Reply:

    populism/leftism: increase the relative wealth of lower classes

    free market capitalism: increase total wealth

    grey enlightenment Reply:

    Under the umbrella of NRX, the technological/libertarian faction can coexist with the traditionalists. They don’t agree on everything, but they have more in common than differences. We should try to channel Charles Murray more than Jarred Taylor. For NRX to become like Stromfront would be a step backwards. It seems like the most important NRX thinkers, some of whom are involved in technology, are more deferential to the technologists. I almost think traditionalism and anti-modernity is holding NRX back, making it indistinguishable form palo conservatism. The anti-egalitarian aspect is the most important theme of NRX and should be promoted to its fullest potential as the selling point of NRX.


    Brett Stevens Reply:

    My current hypothesis is that tech-comms have (unconsciously?) swallowed one of mainstream economic thinking’s central propositions: that the only important outcome measure is the absolute size of your piece of the pie.

    In my experience, almost all movements degenerate to this.

    They talk themselves to death, and then people break away into individualism.

    That quickly turns into having a nice income and living in a gated community and doing the same stupid stuff everyone else does.

    “Hang the future, I’ve made my escape.”

    Oh right: my exit.

    Bonus points for Gollum voice.


    Posted on April 12th, 2015 at 12:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    I’m glad you linked to the Crawford book. That thing is awesome. I made a 10-page outline so I would not lose any of his insights. It’s reminiscent of Closing of the American Mind or Fukuyama’s End of History in the sense that you are getting great stuff on every page.

    He has an interesting take on the Enlightenment. His argument is that Locke and Hobbes et al mis-defined freedom in their effort to get out from the clutches of the Church and absolute monarchs. Their idea became that authority rests within your own head and everything coming at you from outside must be distrusted. Crawford then traces that down through the present, via guys like Emerson (self-reliance) and Norman Mailer (authenticity requires rejecting everything outside yourself).

    The result is atomization and loneliness — and corporations step in and fill the resulting vacuum with THEIR preferences and THEIR definitions of truth and goodness (i.e. the gaming industry, junk food, etc).

    Crawford argues that you need shared external frameworks to have any kind of relation with other people. That’s why he proposes “ecologies of attention” to external things, shared by multiple people. So, for instance, an orchestra provides that. The score itself is an authority to which all must yield independently of how they feel about it. This creates a framework for communication.

    Virtual reality he views as autistic (I pilfered this argument yesterday) because you no longer have to suffer the difficulty of struggling with the outside world. You press a button and everything is exactly how you like it. This is narcissism AND autism. And there is no joy in it because you never feel your power or skill increasing.


    Hattori Reply:

    “Virtual reality he views as autistic (I pilfered this argument yesterday) because you no longer have to suffer the difficulty of struggling with the outside world. You press a button and everything is exactly how you like it. This is narcissism AND autism. And there is no joy in it because you never feel your power or skill increasing.”

    This is not a good argument. You do feel your power and skill increase, these are elements of any good game. A good game is challenging, you cant just do anything you like– overcoming the challenge creates the illusion of accomplishment. It’s why people get addicted (it’s why most hardcore gamers are male).
    The feeling is weak compared to real world accomplishment of course, but it’s doing the job for many boys out there and will get even better in the future as hardware keeps improving.


    Kgaard Reply:

    Crawford anticipates this objection. His retorts:

    * He calls gaming “quasi” autistic (as opposed to full-blown autistic) because there is some room for quasi-agency and because the responses the game gives you are not 100% precise relative to your actions.

    * But he still views gaming as a retreat from reality:

    “When dumb nature is understood to be threatening to our freedom as rational beings, it becomes attractive to construct a virtual reality that will be less so, a benignly nice Mickey Mouse Clubhouse where there is no conflict between self and world. … [but] The fantasy of autonomy comes at the price of impotence.”

    The impotence of which he speaks is impotence in the real world. In the case of gaming that easily translates to LITERAL impotence since you will not pick up chicks playing video games.

    Now on the question of whether gaming allows for real agency:

    “Is a mouse-click a kind of agency? This gesture, emblematic of contemporary life, might be seen as a fulfillment of the thinned-out notion of human agency we have signed on to when we conceive action as the autonomous movements of an isolated person who is essentially disengaged from the world.”

    * Ultimately Crawford recognizes that we need to make a judgment call as to whether the pseudo-agency of a video game is good or bad. He says in modern society we FAIL TO DO THIS because post-Enlightenment liberalism refuses to state a vision of a good life:

    “We also abstain from affirming some substantive picture of human flourishing, for fear of imposing our values on others … If we have no robust and demanding picture of what a good life would look like, then we are unable to articulate any detailed criticism of the particular sort of falling away from a good life that something like machine gambling represents.”


    Lucianus of Samosata Reply:

    I’d argue that it’s possible to derive these insights from the late Wittgenstein (or, even more straightforwardly, Davidson) too.


    Brett Stevens Reply:

    He has an interesting take on the Enlightenment. His argument is that Locke and Hobbes et al mis-defined freedom in their effort to get out from the clutches of the Church and absolute monarchs. Their idea became that authority rests within your own head and everything coming at you from outside must be distrusted.

    This is a pretty standard interpretation of The EnlightenmentTM.


    Kgaard Reply:

    Sound point. I thought someone would mention that. Where Crawford goes in a slightly different direction than NRx is in his call for “shared ecologies of attention” as the antidote to post-Enlightenment alienation. This is slightly different from just saying, “Bring back the power of the Church in order to counter alienation! Bring back Divine Right of Kings!” (Though granted NRx does not really say the latter.)

    There was a very good reason the Enlightenment came about in the first place … and it was the Catholic Church and Divine Right of Kings.

    Evola, by the way, takes a lot of hard shots at the church. He says they basically pilfered a de facto martial authority away from the TRULY DESERVING kings — the warrior priests. Catholic priests were not warriors but wanted to be treated with the deference traditionally reserved for warriors. The Enlightenment was a collective “Fuck that” to this claim.

    Crawford is fine with the concept of deference to authority, but seeks to situate authority in external things with an internal logic of their own (such as, for instance, learning the Russian language). This is a micro approach to the post-Enlightenment problem of alienation.

    New spiritual rituals could serve the religious function. But the existing Catholic rituals? Well … they seem kind of tired.


    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Which link was that? I don’t have time to click through them all.


    Posted on April 12th, 2015 at 1:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • Barry O'Bamaugh Says:

    Gleaned from the Strossy wastelands:

    ‘The upshot is that the whole neoreaction / New Right Weltanschauung is a kind of long con designed by magicians to speed up the personal development of those who hold it.’

    ‘Your hypothesis would certainly explain the … remarkable … ideological vector of someone I knew and considered sane in the early 1990s who has subsequently become a Big Noise in the Dark Enlightenment.
    Who could CS be referring to?


    Erebus Reply:

    Moldbug and Stross were acquainted.


    Hegemonizing Swarm Reply:

    Vaguely amusing mythmaking in that first link

    There’s a notion of ‘reprogramming’ involved which relates to the eight-circuit model of consciousness. You would need to operate at the metaprogramming level to alter the lower circuits of the subjects. As you can see from Wikipedia, that same model has a lot of prominence in both RAW’s thinking and in chaos magick-with-a-K, which, in fact, is the key link you need to connect it to a certain occult (and then occulted) Deleuzian cyberneticist called Nick Land, who underwent a remarkable change in personal philosophy to emerge as what he terms a “tech-comm” (technological commercialist) in the reactosphere (sic). He might be the one referenced via the link to the film I.D. as sinking too deeply into deep cover – but that really is a wild guess.


    Posted on April 12th, 2015 at 6:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • Izak Says:

    Admin, the link for your “very right wing” sad puppy guy isn’t working.


    Hattori Reply:


    Izak Reply:



    Posted on April 12th, 2015 at 7:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    How to appeal to Out-groups.

    Tell them now they’re really out, mean it and enforce it.

    Watch how quickly assimilation becomes very attractive.


    Posted on April 12th, 2015 at 8:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hattori Says:

    It’s hard to disagree with any of that. Video game agency is obviously very limited, but it’s effectiveness at replacing real accomplishment speaks for itself. The stimulation for problem solving they provide is probably not worth the stunted social development.


    Kgaard Reply:

    Video-game users surely KNOW they are stunting their own social growth. So why do they do it? Crawford touches on a reason I’ve been thinking about: The quality of our “ecologies of attention” has collapsed in all realms outside work. What used to bring people together in non-work settings was the conduct of rituals of various sorts. But these have imploded in quality. The classic modern ritual is the rave or techno concert — unsuitable for IQs over 85.

    In non-ritualized, non-work interactions, the intelligent person is likely to get bowled over by the yammering extravert and just want to leave. Hence the appeal of video games.

    The solution would seem to be recovery of high-quality non-work ecologies of attention.

    One could say, “That’s what church does.” But of course the whole reason the Enlightenment came along and undermined church rituals in the first place is that they’re they’re too damn hard on the intellect.

    What would seem to be needed is conscious recovery of old rituals that can serve a purpose in modern life. Or the individual choosing to put oneself in the place where such rituals still happen.

    A very basic one might be ballroom dancing. The dances are essentially ritualized movements to an existing canon of music. Another would be poetry readings. Or ritualized group hallucinogenic meditation followed by sharing of visions. Etc etc.


    Lesser Bull Reply:

    I hear contra dancing is enjoying a mini-boom. I think it fits your bill here.


    Posted on April 12th, 2015 at 8:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    “The acts themselves may be bad, but can the doer of them be so?”

    Either you can be blamed, or nobody can be blamed for what they do to you. If the doer can’t be bad, they can’t be good either. They can’t be innocent. We can morally put them down exactly like we would a dog.


    Posted on April 12th, 2015 at 8:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    That ‘going backwards’ link truly is a bombshell and deserves far less laconic description.


    Posted on April 12th, 2015 at 9:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • Izak Says:

    On the last post about “heroic reaction,” I wrote a long and rambling attempt to draw a difference between the techno-comm brand of right-wing thought, and the ethno-nat brand of right-wing thought.

    I will try to crystallize my observations in this pithy statement:

    Tech-comm says that people exist for structures. Ethno-nats say that structures exist for people.

    (And note how we should characterize these things. Tech-comm strives to be an abstract singular; ethno-nats are a collection of individuals, plural. There is no “ethno-nationalism,” just ethno-nationalists. If a group of them comes together to decide upon a coherent statecraft, they will reach a position better signified with another title.)

    I suppose the Theonomists should say that both structures and people exist for God, though I never see them argue in these terms. It’s not very intellectual to say stuff like that. Julius Evola did (although he was too cool for school to say “God,” often substituting it for “the absolute” or whatever). I think his perspective is just as incompatible to the tech-comms as it is to the ethno-nats, even though no one seems to know this.


    Donovan Greene Reply:

    “Tech-comm says that people exist for structures. Ethno-nats say that structures exist for people.”

    Interesting idea. I can’t say I’ve ever thought of things this way before, but it seems there’s something to this. I’ll have to spend some time thinking this over.


    Bryce Laliberte Reply:

    I think the formulation is meaningless. The parts are not for the whole, nor is the whole for the parts, they are a single form. The whole has a purpose its own, of which the parts’ purpose is subordinate to accomplishing that through their function. In the case of society, humans are subordinate to the structure, something which ethnats especially should be interested given their proclivity towards sacrifice for the greater good, while techcomms would say the structure is subordinate to the people. This latter position is unsustainable [see Singapore]; it sacrifices children to Mammon. The former position, if universalized, becomes leftist as it becomes a vision to subordinate everyone top-down into a “utopian” structure e.g. communism.


    AsgardiansforChrist Reply:

    Why are your Anarchopapist, Unterrorist, and twitter accounts listed as “deleted,” Bryce? I hope they’re not gone for good.

    Izak Reply:

    “The parts are not for the whole, nor is the whole for the parts, they are a single form. The whole has a purpose its own, of which the parts’ purpose is subordinate to accomplishing that through their function.”

    This is an ideal position, but no one actually approaches things this way. It’s like how those advaita vedanta guys all “believe” in universal monism, but then spend their whole lives trying to fully realize the correctness of the idea.

    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    I don’t think any of them say that at all.


    Posted on April 12th, 2015 at 10:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hattori Says:

    On the sad puppies brouhaha.

    Now G.R.R. Martin himself has weighed in with a couple of moderate sounding posts, playing kind to both sides.

    Then suddenly, he jumps the shark.

    And runs away like a little gamma, a real eye opener. Cant believe the last time I lost respect so quickly for someone whose works I used to love.


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    Why lose respect over petty stuff like this?


    Izak Reply:

    Yeah I don’t really see the big deal.

    The whole point of this backlash against SJWs is so that artists can say whatever they want, not so some can get attacked for being doofy SJWs.


    Posted on April 12th, 2015 at 11:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    We need to give people better statistical training. Every one commenting on specific media cases is ignorant and every one else(Including main-line writers) makes standard logical/statistical errors commenting on current affairs.

    1) using singular instances as demonstrative instances of decay
    2) using demographics as demonstrative of decay when if you hold for same variables across the spectrum the conclusions no longer follow
    3) using demographics as demonstrative of decay for large cities(social matter) and then realizing several white cities aren’t doing that well for no apparent reason
    4) twenty year olds thinking they’re great
    5) writers who have opinions not defaulting to being wrong
    6) trying to imply value systems across time are invariant when they depend on energy source
    7) using i.q. as a broad good in situations where there are more appropriate mental metrics (and then failing to know what they are)
    8)using demonstrative arguments about societies ills by using singular cases without a disciplined methodology
    9)using demographics and ghetto social science like putnams thesis and not realizing there is a lower/upper bound for human interaction and not realizing boundaries(TOPOLOGY) are more important
    10) if human interactions have an upper bound for social interaction say dunbar’s numberish and then using putnams thesis as demonstrative for all of society, if some upper bound for human interaction exists then as long as we fulfill that correctly for most people then we’re good
    11) using time-preference arguments incorrectly without reference to biological substrate and then making major mistakes on how to ‘fix’ them or deal with them

    modern societies complexity has far outstripped the ability for the majority of the so-called high i.q. ignorants to comment on it


    Posted on April 13th, 2015 at 12:54 am Reply | Quote
  • Lucianus of Samosata Says:

    From ‘The Liberal American Jewish Psyche in Crisis’:

    “The obvious solution—and there are those who are calling for it now on the right and the left—is to choose among them. Give up one or the other, love of Israel or the allegiance to the left. For most American Jews, in the short term, no such choice is tenable. The investment of self that we have in Israel and in liberalism, and our sense that they can exist alongside each other, is too profound to make uprooting one seem authentic. I cannot see into the future, but past experience suggests that the process of giving up one of these commitments is likely to take decades if it occurs at all.”

    The purpose here is to explicitly affirm the double standard that was previously a tacit one: Jews must maintain views on Israel and the West that are contradictory and conveniently hypocritical. Good Jews are to promote suicidal altruism in white countries, and ethno-nationalism in Israel. There is no ‘crisis’ for the Jewish left, although perhaps the author does feel that hypocrisy is somehow wrong on some level, even as hypocrisy is revealed as the most expedient answer to the pseudo-question addressed. Maybe that’s why he kvetches and wrings his hands about Bibi for 2,500 words. It does give the essay a nice cathartic touch.


    vxxc2014 Reply:

    On the question – which is only an issue because of our own intrinsic weakness and folly – If we want to make it we’ll fall back however reluctantly on the traditional views and policies.

    There is a reason the story never ends happily and it isn’t everyone else, except that everyone else is prey, livestock, sub-human. That attitude will forever carry into everything especially under pressure. Under pressure Atavism wins.

    Broadly speaking – There is no intrinsic right to Power, or even in the American Constitution equality before the law. There are limits on what the government can do and that’s the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is what’s mostly still operative in governance.

    The main body of the document is concerned with divided and limited powers of Federalist government.

    We’ve mistaken common rights and liberties for an equal right to power, which is madness. Of course we should be ruled by ourselves.


    Posted on April 13th, 2015 at 6:04 am Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    LA Times Democracy link.

    “Americans are divided almost equally between liberals and conservatives;”

    No they’re not. Conservatives are 2:1.

    Americans are divided equally between Independents [centrists/moderates] and Conservatives.
    In a consistent range of 37-39% each. Liberals are 19%.

    It’s heartening to see Jared Diamond is noticing the guns.

    The only consistently successful conservative movement is: Guns. Or Right to Bear Arms if one prefers. Even the Left is noticing, and the Right brings assault rifles to Starbucks for a reason.


    Posted on April 13th, 2015 at 10:43 am Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    Did Bryce move to the bay area? Does he have friends/support system? Since he rejected the patreon money i’d like to see if my allies are alright especially the ones with significant investment in neoreaction.


    Posted on April 15th, 2015 at 7:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • Aeroguy Says:

    Something worth discussing is anti-trust law. Especially with the HRx kerfuffle, anti-trust is something that HRx would support while the libertarian oriented are highly skeptical of it. I admit that I’m sympathetic to anti-trust law and have found the CATO and Forbes writing that have argued against it to be weak but I think a stronger case could be made for it. It seems like the sort of thing that opens up an extra layer of nuance, requiring reference to work with greater depth than a short essay. Part of my sympathy can be traced to having a knee-jerk reaction of schadenfreude to articles like this.


    Posted on April 17th, 2015 at 8:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    Thiel says monopolies are good and made relatively cogent arguments, any one read his latest book?


    Posted on April 17th, 2015 at 10:18 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment